I hope so, he can't really be that freaking clueless, can he?

 

We're talking about the guy who...

 

- Has consistently set arbitrary deadlines for when the Oasis Rail Line would be running commuter trains for over ten years (remember "by the All Star Game!).

- Claimed he was going to talk the Reds into keeping Riverfront Stadium after construction started on GABP and the outfield section was removed, because he liked how it made the old stadium feel.

- Claimed he's going to fund FWW caps simply via a TIF on one cap that will then fund the others.

- Recently referred to Metro's 3X bus line as "BRT Lite." It's not.

- Has suggested that the solution to transit funding problems in Hamilton County is to create an 8 county, 3 state transit agency.

 

 

We're also talking about Monzel and Driehaus, because they apparently agree with PBS as Option A.

I think it's incumbent on FCC now to say what specific line items are in the $75 million in "infrastructure" request. The County agreed to fund the garage (~$15m) and Chris Wetterich is saying that the City has committed to $17m in other infrastructure upgrades. That would leave another ~$35m to be funded. But what infrastructure updates would that include? 

Berding/FCC just released a statement: http://www.fccincinnati.com/news_article/show/857184?referrer_id=2584136

 

This seems totally reasonable, and seems like all parties are close to making it work, although details are still needed:

 

We heard their public statements today. The next step is to talk further with the County officials and Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley to see whether, after today’s initial offer to build a parking garage, we can get there on needed infrastructure. Our owners and FC Cincinnati will fund the stadium but will not be funding public infrastructure routinely covered by governments.

^ Is there some sort of standard for what is "routinely covered by governments?" Is he just talking about other stadium developments? I've known developers who wanted to do something as small as add a single traffic light - the government didn't pay for anything. All of the cost is passed on to the developer, in addition to fees.

I think it's incumbent on FCC now to say what specific line items are in the $75 million in "infrastructure" request. The County agreed to fund the garage (~$15m) and Chris Wetterich is saying that the City has committed to $17m in other infrastructure upgrades. That would leave another ~$35m to be funded. But what infrastructure updates would that include? 

 

All of the electric, gas, water, and sewer.  Watch how they'll sneak the cost of all plumbing, including that within the stadium itself, as "infrastructure".  Then they'll defend it the same way that public money was used to outfit the commercial storefront spaces at The Banks for restaurants. 

 

The Lindners already own excess land next to their tennis center in Mason.  They presumably could build the same stadium they're planning in Oakley in Mason for even less money (simpler site prep) and there would be no need for any major infrastructure other than roadways around the stadium and improvements to parking:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mason,+OH/@39.3563609,-84.274088,792m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x884057a89a9a35ef:0xbd5cb1c4195f3d13!8m2!3d39.3600586!4d-84.309939

 

I'm not sure that a stadium in Oakley gets the city or region anything that it doesn't get in Mason.  There is basically zero opportunity for a real landmark for the city in Oakley. 

 

I think people who don't care about soccer could get more excited about this plan if they were moving the tennis center into the city as well as a combined complex.  I have made mention of that previously, but it's worth repeating.  Having the tournament in the city would be a great way to show off the city.  Instead it's out there in no-man's land.  The NY Times ran a piece 2-3 years ago making fun of its unsophisticated location and how international players use it as an opportunity to acquaint themselves with American chain restaurants. 

That's an interesting idea, but the tennis center has been expanded a lot over the years, and is still undergoing major expansion and renovation this year in preparation for next year's tournament. Also, when you take all of the practice courts plus the three stadium courts, and the food/retail component, the tennis center takes up quite a bit of land. I do hate how the tennis tournament is out in Mason, and that most visitors don't really get to experience Cincinnati at all, but I have always heard that the media, players, and out of town fans really like the location. I've heard of several people who will come to Cincinnati for the tournament for 4-5 days, and take one of those days to visit Kings Island or The Beach. The restaurants are definitely lacking in that part of the region, though.

It’s fairly clear to me that this Plan B as it’s called, is already a done deal behind closed doors. This announcement today does everything to allow the commissioners to uphold the appearance of drawing a hard line against County taxes going into this so that they look good to voters. FCC is playing right along by firing back that we won’t get the franchise. Give it a couple weeks and they will have worked out the Plan B.

The Oakley site sucks.  Adjacent to the freeway, but not with great access to the freeway.  Surrounded on the other side by some soul-sucking big-box blah development.  Look back on this thread and see how in April Berding announced that they wanted an urban site in the basin, between UC and the river.  We all got excited for nothing.

There are a lot of conservatives here?

Yup, after sleeping on it, I still believe we'll have an Oakley stadium. I wrote a long post on r/FCCincinnati about it. Basically, as others have stated here Plan A is to save face. I think the Plan B money gap will be worked out either with the Lindners or with the city. It's quite clear the Lindners will do anything to have the stadium in Cincinnati. I would expect a Newport announcement until the last second. FCC also did a season ticket holder poll where apparently all 3 sites where very popular and a heat map showing large chunk of their fan base lives on the east side and up 71.

I kind of figured that their base is that Oakley area, and why they want to locate there.

 

I'm completely fine with Oakley if they can make it into a great site for other developments, but all along, I didn't want $75 million going into it from the public, we have more pressing needs IMO and we need to fix the Millennium Hotel / US Bank, and I hope we can do that soon too.  By dropping down the amount, it was the right move by commissioners and I think they will get it all worked out in the end.

Regarding "infrastructure" requests around the Oakley site, here are some details from: https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/11/16/fc-cincinnati-s-oakley-site-identified.html

 

Nolan said the Oakley Community Council hasn’t gotten into enough detail to know yet whether the plans that call for a much-smaller parking garage of 1,000 spaces, down from original plans for a 4,000-car garage, would be a problem for the area. FC Cincinnati now expects the stadium to seat 21,000, which is the minimum required for an MLS expansion franchise, instead of the previous plans calling for 25,000 seats. The reduced parking garage could leave a shortfall of available spaces.

...

Possible improvements include a street project known as the Edwards Connector. It would extend Edwards Road, which now dead ends at an entrance ramp to Interstate 71 North, to the northeast to connect with Vandercar Way. That would improve access to the new development sites. It would need to run either over or under railroad tracks along that path. That could involve demolition of homes, but Nolan said that's not necessarily the case.

 

“Those plans are 10 years off,” Nolan said, adding those plans are not fully vetted. “If the stadium is approved, we were told it’ll be moved up by the city to three and a half years.”

 

Other needed infrastructure improvements might include widening Vandercar Way and Ibsen Avenue to handle more traffic.

^ So the county will pay for a garage based on what size they feel is appropriate. It sounds like down the line if they need more parking, the county would pay for another garage. some of the $15-$20 million in improvements is semantics, it seems. IF the price tag to widen streets and such comes in at $30 million, then that is what the county will pay. THe numbers flying around don't matter much, ultimately the county will pay for the improvements which is what is important

It would be nice if the Banks were built-out before they start subsidizing development in Oakley with money generated from the Banks.

I'm a bit perplexed why all of the onus is on the County at this point. The City, County, and State are all typical contributors to large infrastructure projects. Anything regarding the interstates would need ODOT sign-off and presumably matching funds from a local entity, but not necessarily from the County. For example, the MLK interchange got all of its local funds ($46 million out of total budget of ~$106m) from the City and none from the County.

 

I'm just confused why right now everybody seems focused on the County to commit to more money for ________ in Oakley, when it isn't even clear what specific infrastructure requests FCC is making. It seems like the next steps need to be: clearly state FCC's infrastructure needs/goals, assess costs for those goals, and *then* determine which entities (City, County, State, FCC, etc.) can contribute to fund it. Berding's statement yesterday made it seem like he has not clearly specified to the County or City what the infrastructure needs are, which frankly is a bit mind-boggling since they've had months to meet and talk. Have they only spoken in uselessly vague terms up to this point? Here's what <a href="http://www.fccincinnati.com/news_article/show/857184?referrer_id=2584136">Berding wrote yesterday</a>:

Part of the conversation with the Mayor and County will be to ensure the County is clear on needed infrastructure costs. In today’s presentation, the numbers did not add up, but we can clarify in person.

 

To be clear, I'm thrilled that FCC is willing to foot the bill for building the stadium and I think it's reasonable to ask for public support for infrastructure that will benefit the whole community. But simply saying "$75 million in infrastructure" is not specific enough.

They should put a roundabout at the Madison Rd/ Ridge Ave intersection. And 3 more up Ridge at Ibsen, Alamo and at the 71 N exit ramp. It would ensure a continuous flow from Oakley station to most of the highway/Norwood Lateral exit and entrance ramps.

They should put a roundabout at the Madison Rd/ Ridge Ave intersection. And 3 more up Ridge at Ibsen, Alamo and at the 71 N exit ramp. It would ensure a continuous flow from Oakley station to most of the highway/Norwood Lateral exit and entrance ramps.

Whoa. Bold. For a roundabout-averse town, folks would probably lose their collective minds. Not sure if the geometry of Ridge would permit all of those... but it's interesting idea!

Roundabouts are interesting, you get used to them really fast and they seem a bit awkward the first 5 times, but after that it is super easy.  Since you hardly ever see them, when I do see them when I'm back home in Iowa which seems to have a lot more than here, it's kind of an awkward feeling at first then it's "just like riding a bike".

^ Is there some sort of standard for what is "routinely covered by governments?" Is he just talking about other stadium developments? I've known developers who wanted to do something as small as add a single traffic light - the government didn't pay for anything. All of the cost is passed on to the developer, in addition to fees.

 

My friend bought a house in Oxford, OH and he is unable to get high speed internet access because Time Warner Cable does not run any cable down his street and Cincinnati Bell only runs a coper wire. He was told by Time Warner Cable that he would need to pay something like $30,000 to extend cable service to his house. I will be sure to let him know that infrastructure costs are "routinely covered by governments" and that he can forward the bill to Butler County.

Well Monzel was on 700 this morning and acted like a deal could come together. Then not long after Berding was on 700 and came out and took a ton of shots at Portune and the Plan A PBS idea. He also said they've been talking to Newport and have had a breakthrough on the TIF there. He said Plan B would only work in Oakley if FCC can keep game day parking revenue and Ham Co could have non-game day parking. So not sure if he's given up on Hamilton Co or he's just putting pressure on them. Times running out. The plan has to be submitted to MLS by Dec 1st.

Good commentary piece from Wetterich:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/11/15/commentary-with-county-a-yes-on-fc-cincinnati-in.html

They spent so much time in the backrooms that they forgot to allocate time for public review. Whatever happens is a rush-job and unfair to taxpayers unless it is 100% privately funded. Including all infrastructure improvements.

^ that is a naïve statement. Most cities take infrastructure improvements as on them. Public roads and streets and sewers is the county and city responsibility anyway. THis deal is a layup compared to other plans across the country.

 

http://www.wcpo.com/news/insider/fc-cincinnati-wants-75m-heres-what-other-cities-will-kick-in-for-new-mls-stadiums

The Springfield News-Sun weighs in:

 

This FC Cincinnati-MLS saga is outrageously stupid

 

Even putting aside the drama in central Ohio, the league’s demands for Cincinnati are completely unreasonable. If you can’t see that you’re just blinded by love (or something else).

 

Face facts: Cincinnati doesn’t need another stadium. Neither the city nor the county should spend a penny on one, even if it’s “just infrastructure." Private citizens, such as the ones from the same family that spent years misdirecting the Reds, are free to spend their money however they want, but it would still be a waste nonetheless.

The Springfield News-Sun weighs in:

 

This FC Cincinnati-MLS saga is outrageously stupid

 

Even putting aside the drama in central Ohio, the leagues demands for Cincinnati are completely unreasonable. If you cant see that youre just blinded by love (or something else).

 

Face facts: Cincinnati doesnt need another stadium. Neither the city nor the county should spend a penny on one, even if its just infrastructure." Private citizens, such as the ones from the same family that spent years misdirecting the Reds, are free to spend their money however they want, but it would still be a waste nonetheless.

 

ugh I actually lost brain cells reading that. So he's mad a the crew owner and then links to a Deadspin article? Any reporter that uses Deadspin cannot be taken seriously.

^ that is a naïve statement. Most cities take infrastructure improvements as on them. Public roads and streets and sewers is the county and city responsibility anyway. THis deal is a layup compared to other plans across the country.

 

http://www.wcpo.com/news/insider/fc-cincinnati-wants-75m-heres-what-other-cities-will-kick-in-for-new-mls-stadiums

 

Not sure what you are trying to say. (1) That infra improvements, relative to stadia, are usually taken upon by local jurisdictions, or (2) that infrastructure improvement decisions are usually made without community involvement. Both of those statements strongly rely on what we are talking about when we say "infrastructure improvements", which I see you posted a link (which I have yet to look at) that seems like an attempt to clarify. Clarification is good, but up to now the term has been ill-defined except for a parking garage. Which, no, in most developments is not routinely considered separate from the building(s) (in this case a stadium) of the development. So already we have some sleight-of-hand when FCC owners say they are 100% funding the stadium if they are not including the stadium's parking garage, which in all likelihood (and if it's not, we have another problem to address) is going to be even physically a part of the stadium's structure. Hence it must be included in any reference to "100% of the stadium".

 

If your suggestion was (2), that's only true for very minor improvements and nothing on the scale of $75m. A public participation process, typically lasting months, is absolutely routine for infrastructure improvements of that magnitude. There's no way this can be accomplished prior to the December deadline.

Long-term, I think MLS would be wise to allow its franchises to be seen as the prudent ones and permit them to play in existing facilities, where they exist.  And allowing the Crew to abandon Columbus is another problem. 

 

The Dodgers and Giants moving out of New York is *still* a stain on baseball.  The loss of almost all of the classic baseball stadiums is something baseball will never be able to get back.  The anomaly of an NFL team based in tiny Green Bay enriches the culture of the entire league. 

 

MLS could position itself as the better league if it can set up safeguards against this crap and allow for anachronisms. 

^ This does seem like frustration with MLS over the Columbus deal. The biggest difference between Cincinnati and Columbus is that Columbus has always been on shakier ground with out of town ownership. Columbus is not losing their team because of a poor stadium or lack of fan support, it is losing the team because the owner purchased it 4 years ago with a plan to move it. IF it was not Columbus it would have been some other team. The owner had no ties to Columbus and never was fond of the city to begin with.

 

In Cincinnati you have 2 of the top 3 families in town investing in the team. completely different situation from the beginning.

Long-term, I think MLS would be wise to allow its franchises to be seen as the prudent ones and permit them to play in existing facilities, where they exist.  And allowing the Crew to abandon Columbus is another problem. 

 

The Dodgers and Giants moving out of New York is *still* a stain on baseball.  The loss of almost all of the classic baseball stadiums is something baseball will never be able to get back.  The anomaly of an NFL team based in tiny Green Bay enriches the culture of the entire league. 

 

MLS could position itself as the better league if it can set up safeguards against this crap and allow for anachronisms. 

 

I think MLS should institute rules that prohibit a team from locating to a new media market. They should be allowed to shop around for a stadium site, but shouldn't be allowed to relocate the team to another area.

 

If a team is facing hardship they should have a few options:

 

1) find new ownership who would like to invest in the team in it's current location.

 

2) sell the team back to MLS. MLS would then have two options

a) look for new ownership and maintain operations in the current city

b) sell the franchise rights to another media market, but ensure independent ownership from the old team. Lifetime ban on that old ownership from ever purchasing shares into the new franchise that's been relocated.

^ SOme of this stuff you would need special consideration from Congress to implement. The problem is that when you have a franchise model, the league is limited in certain areas like this as far as relocation. AL Davis showed this in the 80s when he moved the Raiders from Oakland to LA. The league tried to block him at that time but the court found that the nature of the franchise model prevented some of the steps they took in that area.

 

I don't think you can overly restrict a team from leaving a market so long as there is an independent franchise model in place. THe key is to ensure there is strong local ownership to provide that stability to the local market. However, even then that may not be enough (See Stan Kroenke, Art Modell)

 

 

^ that is a naïve statement. Most cities take infrastructure improvements as on them. Public roads and streets and sewers is the county and city responsibility anyway. THis deal is a layup compared to other plans across the country.

 

http://www.wcpo.com/news/insider/fc-cincinnati-wants-75m-heres-what-other-cities-will-kick-in-for-new-mls-stadiums

 

Looked at your linked article. I think you missed my point, which was that they didn't leave sufficient time for the public to review any public monetary commitments. Therefore it's too late to offer them.

 

The San Diego example from the article establishes precedent for a zero-offer from the public. FCC ownership is so desperate to make MLS happen that my bet is they would accept this. They're all-in on this, and bargaining from a very weak position. Public officials should recognize this, and also recognize that it is at this point too late to offer their constituents sufficient time to review a public funding scheme. They should be telling FCC ownership, "sorry, y'all, that ship has sailed."

^ SOme of this stuff you would need special consideration from Congress to implement. The problem is that when you have a franchise model, the league is limited in certain areas like this as far as relocation. AL Davis showed this in the 80s when he moved the Raiders from Oakland to LA. The league tried to block him at that time but the court found that the nature of the franchise model prevented some of the steps they took in that area.

 

I don't think you can overly restrict a team from leaving a market so long as there is an independent franchise model in place. THe key is to ensure there is strong local ownership to provide that stability to the local market. However, even then that may not be enough (See Stan Kroenke, Art Modell)

 

Actually, MLS is a "single entity" league, where the teams are actually owned by the league itself. Another interesting quirk is that players technically have MLS contracts, not contracts with the teams. I think this would allow the league to introduce additional checks on what an ownership group can do. The biggest hurdle is that I think the team owners would have to create this rule since team owners are actually MLS owners.

The real solution to all of this would be new non-profit leagues for each of the sports where the municipalities (or counties) owned the teams.  Do not allow privately-owned teams.  It has worked just fine for Green Bay for almost 100 years. 

 

 

The real solution to all of this would be new non-profit leagues for each of the sports where the municipalities (or counties) owned the teams.  Do not allow privately-owned teams.  It has worked just fine for Green Bay for almost 100 years. 

 

 

 

It worked so well for Green Bay that the NFL added rules prohibiting any other teams from adopting the same model.

The real solution to all of this would be new non-profit leagues for each of the sports where the municipalities (or counties) owned the teams.  Do not allow privately-owned teams.  It has worked just fine for Green Bay for almost 100 years.

 

Combine this with promotion and relegation, and we'd have a great, ethical sports league that would actually help U.S. soccer develop talent and compete on the world stage. The MLS/NASL/USL/etc. model will never allow that to happen; U.S. will be a soccer backwater as long as this rigidly tiered structure exists.

The real solution to all of this would be new non-profit leagues for each of the sports where the municipalities (or counties) owned the teams.  Do not allow privately-owned teams.  It has worked just fine for Green Bay for almost 100 years.

 

Combine this with promotion and relegation, and we'd have a great, ethical sports league that would actually help U.S. soccer develop talent and compete on the world stage. The MLS/NASL/USL/etc. model will never allow that to happen; U.S. will be a soccer backwater as long as this rigidly tiered structure exists.

 

Agreed. It's stupid that both Austin and San Antonio cannot field teams at the highest level.

How many voters might want a do-over tomorrow?

 

 

Cincinnati Mayor John Cranley to announce FC Cincinnati stadium finance package Friday

 

Mayor John Cranley will unveil his plan Friday to for the city to help fund the FC Cincinnati soccer stadium.

 

Cranley told The Enquirer he will pitch his stadium finance plan late Friday afternoon, but declined to reveal any details of it.

 

Any plan the mayor develops must be approved by city council.

 

Cont

Remember when Cranley pulled the plug on the 30-story Fourth and Race tower because the city building a $12 million parking garage (as the base of the new tower) was "too rich" of a deal?

 

Surely he will use the same standards when it comes to the parking garage and other infrastructure FCC is asking for.

Remember when Cranley pulled the plug on the 30-story Fourth and Race tower because the city building a $12 million parking garage (as the base of the new tower) was "too rich" of a deal?

 

Surely he will use the same standards when it comes to the parking garage and other infrastructure FCC is asking for.

 

Surely now is the time to get 3CDC involved in that too!

This FC Cincinnati-MLS saga is outrageously stupid

By Marcus Hartman

 

Wednesday was another adventure in the comedy/drama that is the 2017 Cincinnati Bengals, but I admit to being a little distracted when I was at Paul Brown Stadium.

 

It was hard to ignore all the stuff swirling about FC Cincinnati, the city and Hamilton County.

 

I also couldn’t help but keep coming back to one question: Why in the world would anyone want to do anything to accommodate Major League Soccer?

^ I think this project is bigger than a downtown apartment building. THis is something that could help create demand for 5 apartment towers in the future.

Why does anyone care about the Springfield News-Sun?

I didn't know that paper existed until this afternoon.

^ I think this project is bigger than a downtown apartment building. THis is something that could help create demand for 5 apartment towers in the future.

 

I think this is optimistic. We’ve already built two stadiums and a world class park and all we got in that area was three mid rise apartment buildings so far

Berding: FC Cincinnati would lose $167 million over 10 years if it played at Paul Brown Stadium

 

FC Cincinnati’s estimates show that it would lose $167 million over 10 years if it played its games at Paul Brown Stadium, the team’s general manager, Jeff Berding, said on Thursday.

 

While the club plans to meet with Cincinnati and Hamilton County officials Thursday night, Friday and into the weekend to try to hash out a financing plan for infrastructure surrounding a potential soccer-specific stadium in Oakley, it does not plan to push for Paul Brown Stadium with Major League Soccer, Berding said.

 

“No,” Berding said when asked if FC Cincinnati would go to MLS with the county to take a look at Paul Brown Stadium, as commissioner Todd Portune has requested. “The MLS has been very clear – very clear – that a soccer-specific stadium is going to be required to win an MLS bid. The notion that we would play in Paul Brown Stadium is fantasy. It is a losing bid.”

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/11/16/berding-fc-cincinnati-would-lose-167-million-over.html

I drove around the Oakley site last night. The area is big box stores and parking lots and doesn’t really have a sense of place. It may be “in Cincinnati”, but there’s little about it that’s specifically “Cincinnati”. (Or even “Oakley” for that matter- “Oakley” makes me think of the walkable neighborhood and Square area to the south.)

 

In contrast, in Newport the Cincinnati skyline would be looming large right there and all of downtown Cincinnati’s activity would be right over the river. That’s why I really can’t understand people opposed to Newport because it’s “not Cincinnati”, or that think Cincinnati is going to “lose” or “be embarrassed” if the stadium is built in Kentucky.

Combine this with promotion and relegation, and we'd have a great, ethical sports league that would actually help U.S. soccer develop talent and compete on the world stage. The MLS/NASL/USL/etc. model will never allow that to happen; U.S. will be a soccer backwater as long as this rigidly tiered structure exists.

 

Not to get too deep into the pro/rel discussion (and maybe there's a better thread for this), but while I think pro/rel can happen someday, it's not going to happen until there are stronger divisions below the clubs that are seen as "major league." The USL has some very strong independent clubs with great ownership, development, and support (FCC, Sacramento, Louisville) and then it has II teams rounding out its operation and clubs like Rochester that are on the brink of folding every year. The NASL also has some strong clubs, but that league's been a mess for years, is on the brink of death again, and has its share of operational nightmares as teams. Until a truly strong second or alternative division exists, the top clubs aren't even going to consider promotion/relegation. Can you imagine the LA Galaxy being relegated to the USL and the Harrisburg City Islanders being promoted to MLS? I think American soccer will eventually be found in several markets ranging from the big cities to the mid tiers to the Louisville's/Dayton's, etc., but we're a long way from that. USL is making some good moves towards creating a strong 2nd division though.

 

I drove around the Oakley site last night. The area is big box stores and parking lots and doesn’t really have a sense of place. It may be “in Cincinnati”, but there’s little about it that’s specifically “Cincinnati”. (Or even “Oakley” for that matter- “Oakley” makes me think of the walkable neighborhood and Square area to the south.)

 

In contrast, in Newport the Cincinnati skyline would be looming large right there and all of downtown Cincinnati’s activity would be right over the river. That’s why I really can’t understand people opposed to Newport because it’s “not Cincinnati”, or that think Cincinnati is going to “lose” or “be embarrassed” if the stadium is built in Kentucky.

 

As an Oakley resident, I love the idea of being able to walk to matches (goodbye long bus rides or expensive ubers to Clifton), but I think Newport is far and away the best site. People will get over the fact that it's in Kentucky should Newport come to pass. There's a vocal group online who's opposed, but I doubt the entire fanbase or season ticket holder group has some sort of aversion to crossing the river.

I don't disagree that the West End or Newport would be far superior sites. By I also think that this stadium, if located in Oakley, will definitely allow development to accelerate in that area. I also hope, that perhaps with the influx of traffic that area gets, it'll begin to realize that surface lots are not the answer for the area, and that a more urban approach for Oakley will slowly begin to be sought after for.

 

Again, probably wishful thinking no doubt, but I am very curious how FCC will shape the future of oakley. It could honestly do wonders IMO.